I can't sort out putting a photo of me on my profile (how apt, given the title of the blog); I've accidentally deleted forever Rob's comment, and other people have had difficulty leaving comments at all. Blogging is also quite fun though, hence my return to this seat in which i've wasted much time and sworn in too rich a manner and quantity.I thought it might be helpful to explain a little bit about some of the things that are racing around my head these days, since that's probably what will most affect what i blog.
I was raised as a fairly traditional, conservative, evangelical, charismatic, Christian (although at the time i was just a 'Christian', because in my mind, that's the only sort of Christian there was). I don't want to talk disparagingly about that though, since it has served as foundational in my spiritual journey. Also, support given me in what i'm doing now and the way i'm doing it, by friends and family who come under that banner, has been deep, genuine and even liberating. What i will say is that, somewhere in the past 5-10 years, i've moved away from a form of Christianity which looks to contort what the Bible says into a list of moral behaviours, to a form of Christianity which looks to contort what the Bible says into a principle: love.
The Christ i now see in scripture actually loves people and is far more interested in justice, peace and freedom, rather than a privatised, individualistic 'holiness'. This has changed my guilt. The story about planks and specks in people's eyes now makes real sense to me. Where it used to be about grades of personal sins; swearing = speck, having sex before being married= plank, it's now about personal sin V corporate sin. I'm not talking about corporations in a buisness sense (exclusively), i'm talking about stuff people do corporately, eg. concern ourselves with status symbols while people starve - plank! Buy products which either save us money or make us feel cool, which have been made by people who are desperately exploited - plank! Have spare rooms while people sleep on streets - plank! pay tax to a government who then spend it on warfare - plank!
Am i naive? Yes.
Am i an idealist? Yes.
Am i living according to the kind of morality i laid out above? No.
This is my question:
a) What if we actually believed, and lived like, Jesus was serious when he said 'whenever you do/refuse to do this for the least of my people here, you do/refuse to do it for me.'
b) How do we begin to figure out how to do that?
Please excuse me, i'm going to spend some time weeping and repenting before continuing to live my life unchanged.
ps. for more on these kind of questions, and subsequent questions, go to dan hussey's blog, jody gabriel's blog and ben brown's blog. These are some of the people who have been key in my thinking about how radical i'm prepared to be to follow Jesus (don't hold your breath with Ben and jody's blogs though, i'm considering running a book on whether either of them will ever post again and which one will be first).
13 comments:
That's the best exposition of specks and planks I've read. Thanks, Andy. Tons to think about. Even more to do.
Hi Andy!
I like your blog, it looks good and is more eloquent than mine could ever be...unless you wrote mine i suppose! It is good to see your loathing for computers has not altered since you became a student. I will be round at some point to help you add a picture for your profile.. I promise!
Your points are interesting and the people who comment are also interesting (obviously excluding myself!)
See you soon, keep blogging and keep swearing at inanimate objects!!
Peace.Dan
p.s. thanks for the plug!!
Hmmm. Personal morality is worthless. Materialism is great, as long as it conforms to politically correct paleo-liberalism. Christianity is being flushed down the toilet in the UK and this is the reason.
Sharia Law will be needed to bring some reason.
I should add that the vast majority of the violence in this world (e.g. abortion, family conflict, death by STDs) as well as much of the poverty is a result of a disregard for personal morality.
Hello looney,
Perhaps i ought to clarify; i'm not saying personal morality is worthless at all, sin is sin is sin. What I am saying is that we need to be aware of how deeply into the cultures we inhabit sin runs. So much so that we endorse behaviours which have economic benefits to us, though they be clearly sinful (as per the examples given in the blog), whilst spending all our energies making sure everyone is aware of the evils of feeling lusty.
I say this with my tongue ever-so slightly in my cheek since i'm all too aware of the importance of speaking about sex. Over the past few years i've spent much of my time taking lessons in high schools about the consequences of not taking sex seriously enough.
yours, andy.
Sorry for getting wound up. Our highschools out here only want to teach safe sex. i.e. Anything is moral if you can avoid the bad consequences.
Since I interact with Asia a lot, my impression of globalization is that it has lifted perhaps half a billion people out of poverty. Certainly there is plenty of Western discomfort, but I would be skeptical of the union critique that jobs are only lost because people are "desperately exploited".
Probably we can both agree that there is nothing sadder than a person who lives for possessions and has no feelings for those who have nothing.
You are right in your assessment of what we can agree on, but i actually hope our agreement can go further than that. I hope we can agree on the enormous value of seeking out and identifying in our own lives where we function that way. Also, the worth in our commitment to the poor being radical enough, that we genuinely attempt to operate in a way as though they were Christ, or a beloved family member, or even ourselves.
I agree with that too.
Of course, we must note that a big chunk of the GDP of western developed nations is being transferred to the poor. Personal moral poverty is rampant, but our beggars get food and health care as good as the rich of the New Testament.
Are you serious? "...but our beggars get food and health care as good as the rich of the New Testament"
Firstly, I don't buy that for a moment.
Secondly, even if it were true, the idea that the homeless are as well off as the rich from the Near East 2,000(!) years ago in no way allows my conscience to go to bed.
Thirdly, what you're saying here seems to tend towards one of two things. Either you're looking for a way out of taking personal responsibilty for alleviating poverty, or you're demonstrating an insistence on picking a fight. Neither impress me. Please tell me I'm wrong about this.
Actually, our beggars get food and health care that is incomparably better than the rich of the NT. They get $500 per month in cash where I live plus free medical. (Praise the Lord that they don't have medical insurance so they can get treated immediately at the emergency room without the redtape terrorism that I deal with.) Many other groups also provide food and I (like countless others) periodically give some handouts.
There is nothing wrong with helping the poor. Just trying to get you out of an extremely narrow thinking box.
Oh great, thank you. My personal morality is fairly up to scratch, and since 'beggars' (not a term i'm fond of) where you live don't have it so bad I have very little to be to be guilty about or repentent of. That's super. I'd better get back to being as judgemental as possible about others missing quiet times, not having extremely biblical(?) sex or not having professed Jesus as Lord in quite the right way.
Sarcasm aside there's 2 things i'd like to say:
1)my second point still stands, my conscience is not eased by treatment of the poor where you live. There are poor elsewhere which I, challenged by my understanding of scripture, am charged with feeding, clothing, housing and loving. 'Poor' is a comparitive term, it's comparitive to rich, rich of the same time, not just same time-zone, but same time.
2)Whilst I appreciate all you're trying to do is get me out of an extremely narrow thinking box (and I mean that, open-mindedness is a quality I rate alot and seek to be known by). All I'm trying to do is suggest that perhaps, somewhere along the line, the Church has traded the right to speak freely and challenge openly people's personal behaviour for the ability to speak in a similar manner about what it is to 'own' something. Hence now, the Church having shown me very clearly what it is to be 'sexually radical in this day and age for Jesus', but having completely failed to demonstrate radical commitment to the poor, and un-commitment to my possesions and status, beyond buying ownership of 90% of my wealth with the giving of the other 10%.
In essence, all I'm daring to suggest is that there could be an imbalance our piety. If you're insisting there's not, and I'm wrong, fine. Can we end this now please?
I bow to the pressure and have posted on my blog and Kez's blog!
I've got to repeat what I have said on both of those.
It is about time we started doing what we talk about.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said,
"The renewal of the church will come from a new type of
monasticism, which has only in common with the old an
uncompromising allegiance to the sermon on the mount. It is high time men and women banded together to do this."
For a fuller answer have a read of what I wrote on Kez's blog.
Take care :-)
Post a Comment